judge not letting architech testify without wearing a tie

Carawaystick

from de paper

After he took the bible in his right hand he was sworn in by court registrar, Dermot Hinchy.

But as Mr Kerly was about answer, Gearoid McGann, of Sweeney McGann Solicitors, on the dimensions of the extension, Judge O’Donohue intervened.

“Do you have a neck tie?” he asked.

Mr Kerley said he had not.

Judge Donohue asked him to leave the witness box and get a neck tie, saying: “We want the right kind of dress and proper decorum here. This is not a Ryanair kind of show we are running here.”

Maybe some of the legal eagles here could let the plain people of Ireland how justice delayed is better justice here...

coylemj

The judge's attitude probably is that anyone appearing before him in a professional capacity should wear business dress which in this part of the world means a man should show up in a jacket and tie. Whether you agree with that or not is neither here nor there, it's his court and he can (within reason) lay down the rules. The solicitor who called the architect as a witness could possibly write a letter of complaint to the president of the circuit court but what might be a better solution is that he packs a couple of spare ties in his briefcase for future situations of this type.

pickarooney

Whatever about the tie his remark about Ryanair is unwarranted.

Victor

And this is why the occcasional judge should be assassinated.

goz83

Light up christmas ties on sale already. Take that....Judge

tayto lover

Judges are a law unto themselves. Most of them are prats. Full of their own importance.

tayto lover

coylemj wrote: »

The judge's attitude probably is that anyone appearing before him in a professional capacity should wear business dress which in this part of the world means a man should show up in a jacket and tie. Whether you agree with that or not is neither here nor there, it's his court and he can (within reason) lay down the rules. The solicitor who called the architect as a witness could possibly write a letter of complaint to the president of the circuit court but what might be a better solution is that he packs a couple of spare ties in his briefcase for future situations of this type.

Wait until Mick Wallace is up again :pac:

blindsider

Arrogant and pompous dinosaur!

Further proof (if needed) that the judiciary is stuck up its own rear end.

How does wearing a tie improve the quality of the evidence/testimony? If it's so important, then EVERYONE who takes the stand should be compelled to wear a tie - men, women and children. (Sound ridiculous? Of course it does! Just like our learned friend's tantrum.)

In that position, I would be tempted to make a stand, or turn up wearing a 'Mickey Mouse' tie.

Jentle Grenade

Context is everything. As an individual who witnessed the exchange, the reproduction of events in the newspaper is provocative (which was the intent of course) and misleading. Surprising, eh!? Personally I always keep two ties in my "court box", lots of reps do.

hardCopy

Jentle Grenade wrote: »

Context is everything. As an individual who witnessed the exchange, the reproduction of events in the newspaper is provocative (which was the intent of course) and misleading. Surprising, eh!? Personally I always keep two ties in my "court box", lots of reps do.

In what context would the judge not look like a gob****e?

coylemj

Jentle Grenade wrote: »

Context is everything. As an individual who witnessed the exchange, the reproduction of events in the newspaper is provocative (which was the intent of course) and misleading. Surprising, eh!?

If the Examiner version was 'misleading' then can we have your version. Please?

Manach

Perhaps in a backhanded way the judge did him a favour. In that expert witnesses have an expectation of expertise and showing up in court without a tie would betoken a certain lack of nuance.

4ensic15

Bouncers refuse to let people into clubs and pubs because of non compliance with a dress code. Many shop assistants have to wear ties at work. Courts are serious places with serious business being done. Wearing the appropriate attire is the least that can be expected from any professional.

Victor

I'd like to apologise for my earlier outburst. Maybe the journalists have coloured was has been written. However, the fact remains that some judges seem to prefer Victorian era 'properness' to getting on with their job and delivering justice. It judging the book by neither its content nor cover, but by whether it is contained in a crisp paper bag for a good bookseller.

4ensic15 wrote: »

Bouncers refuse to let people into clubs and pubs because of non compliance with a dress code.

Pubs and clubs (a) want to modify behaviour and (b) create an atmosphere is conducive to the clientele that the management desire. They are seeking a style, because that is what they are selling - style and watered-down vodka. People 'want' to go to pubs and clubs because it is fashionable. People are forced to go to court. Based on the article, the judge was a paid up member of the fashion police. Fair enough, the judge can do that own their own time, not on ours.

Many shop assistants have to wear ties at work.

That is what their employers desire them to wear, so as to create (a) the impression of Victorian era properness (b) the false impression that the sales person will tell the truth and recommend the best product for the shopper when in reality it is solely about margin and selling what the management want sold.

Courts are serious places with serious business being done. Wearing the appropriate attire is the least that can be expected from any professional.

Interesting then that none of party calling the witness thought that they weren't suitably attired. They hired an architect. Architects are artists. They dress nice. It's not like the witness showed up in stained painter's overalls and smoked in the courtroom while scratching like Al Bundy.

I've seen everything from shorts & t-shirts to rather pompous morning suits in courts. While I think those parts of the scale are inappropriate, I think it is important to consider why appearance is important - one is trying to convey gravitas, sincerity and create the impression that you are telling the truth. The mere presence or absence of a tie does not achieve gravitas. Demeanour, politeness, forthrightness, focus, clarity and thoroughness should be the type of things considered. It is a selling exercise, not the price of admission.

What if the witness didn't own or couldn't afford a tie / suit / suit from a quality tailor frequented by legal types? What if the witness had a neck rash? What if the witness was from a culture (geographic or social grouping) where ties aren't worn?

nxbyveromdwjpg

This is the same judge that was convicted for failing to comply with a Garda asking for a breathalyser test isn't it.

That must be the proper decorum when one is drink driving.

jacko

This is completely ridiculous. What you wear in court should not be a factor in deciding whether your testimony will be heard it not. Within reason of course.

Is there a hard rule or law stating what the attire should be?

If not then the judge has blatantly made it obvious that he is going to be prejudice in any decision made based on how the witness is dressed.
If this was in an episode of Father Ted it would be a hard sell

robman60

It's unfortunate that some judges behave in a way that contributes to people's view of them as out of touch. Incidents like this exemplify it perfectly.

EricPraline

coylemj wrote: »

The judge's attitude probably is that anyone appearing before him in a professional capacity should wear business dress which in this part of the world means a man should show up in a jacket and tie. Whether you agree with that or not is neither here nor there, it's his court and he can (within reason) lay down the rules..

Interested in how one might justify that this requirement is "within reason"? How would he specifically define "business dress" and "this part of the world"? Do you mean in the legal realm or in the professional capacity of the witness as an architect?

This appears to be an entirely subjective decision at the whim of the judge in question, rather than taking into account the knowledge of the witness regarding the subject at hand. Effectively we have a member of one profession completely disregarding the professional opinion of an expert in their domain for no good reason. The judge's whim is wasting the time of both the witness and the court.

It would be useful to take a step back here. Regardless of the seriousness of the case in question, it is exactly this type of subjective and arbitrary behaviour that undermines the public's confidence in the Irish judiciary.

EricPraline

Manach wrote: »

Perhaps in a backhanded way the judge did him a favour. In that expert witnesses have an expectation of expertise and showing up in court without a tie would betoken a certain lack of nuance.

Or perhaps the witness is sufficiently confident in their expertise and past experience, that showing up with or without a tie is immaterial, especially if it is not a requirement in the day-to-day activities of their profession. It's not as if we are talking about an individual who turned up in shorts or overalls here.

On the other hand, we might encounter an individual with no expertise or professional experience who dons a tie to give the appearance of reliability. Should be treat that individual more seriously?

Presumably the members of the court are nuanced enough to distinguish between these two cases.

Hopefully the coverage of this case might do the judge in question a favour, although I doubt it.

hardCopy

How the architect should have responded

Youngblood.III

This is why knackers get dressed up for court dates...they know it will impress the judiciary.
Pompous fools of an era well gone.

Jawgap

pickarooney wrote: »

Whatever about the tie his remark about Ryanair is unwarranted.

Indeed - the only time I've seen O'Leary wear a tie is when Ryanair are in the High Court.

FreudianSlippers

Youngblood.III wrote: »

This is why knackers get dressed up for court dates...they know it will impress the judiciary.
Pompous fools of an era well gone.

If by "dressed up" you mean a matching tracksuit...

FreudianSlippers

tayto lover wrote: »

Judges are a law unto themselves. Most of them are prats. Full of their own importance.

Sounds like someone got told off by a Judge.

Manach

EricPraline wrote: »

Or perhaps the witness is sufficiently confident in their expertise and past experience, that showing up with or without a tie is immaterial, especially if it is not a requirement in the day-to-day activities of their profession. It's not as if we are talking about an individual who turned up in shorts or overalls here.

On the other hand, we might encounter an individual with no expertise or professional experience who dons a tie to give the appearance of reliability. Should be treat that individual more seriously?

Presumably the members of the court are nuanced enough to distinguish between these two cases.

Hopefully the coverage of this case might do the judge in question a favour, although I doubt it.

So basically outside your contrived factual scenario, you are discounting the necessity for Expert witnesses to have some notion of the how their knowledge and manner (and from what I've read on the profession a source of income to many such) might be interpreted in a legal situation if presented in less than formal manner: ie the core of a testimony which depends on various strict evidential rules where sloppiness leads to complications down the line.

Thus your analogy makes as much sense as coming to say a job interview in PJs so long has one has the skillz. :rolleyes:

NUTLEY BOY

Judges have discretion in relation to the conduct of the business in their courtrooms.

_Tombstone_

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Sounds like someone got told off by a Judge.

Silly

Carawaystick

Manach wrote: »

Thus your analogy makes as much sense as coming to say a job interview in PJs so long has one has the skillz. :rolleyes:

Or maybe a better analogy would be an experienced architect going for an interview in a blazer and shirt...

I would imagine the time for a judge to complain about the appearance of a witness is before they are affirmed or sworn in... Maybe the judge wasn't paying attention then....

L1011

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Judges have discretion in relation to the conduct of the business in their courtrooms.

Why clothes - beyond actual basic decency - can and are considered conduct is ridiculous though.

Telling someone who already has the shirt'n'shoes on and without a "**** the police" style slogan on the front to change is ludicrous.

Cianmcliam

L1011 wrote: »

Why clothes - beyond actual basic decency - can and are considered conduct is ridiculous though.

Telling someone who already has the shirt'n'shoes on and without a "**** the police" style slogan on the front to change is ludicrous.

If you were buying a house and the estate agent showed up in Bermuda shorts and a GAA jersey would you consider they were taking your custom seriously and with respect? Same as if you were going before a judge and your solicitor showed up in a pair of jeans and runners, while all other solicitors were dressed in suits, would you feel the solicitor was taking your case seriously?

Victor

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

If by "dressed up" you mean a matching tracksuit...

The good, 'going out' tracksuit.

keeponhurling

pickarooney wrote: »

Whatever about the tie his remark about Ryanair is unwarranted.

bordering on slander I would have thought

kidneyfan

Carawaystick wrote: »

from de paper



Maybe some of the legal eagles here could let the plain people of Ireland how justice delayed is better justice here...

Donoghue should communicate this in advance and also Donoghue should keep a box of spare neckties. I agree with him by the way. I see that the judge waited for him. Congrats to Judge Donoghue!

Claw Hammer

If you were getting married and hired a hotel, organised expensive dresses suits etc and stipulated that it was black tie and a guest turned up wearing a pair of old jeans and a bomber jacket would you be happy about it.
Even if you were invited to a wedding, wore your best suit and then found that the bride and groom were in denim shorts and t shirts, what would you think.
People should wear appropriate clothing for whatever situation they are going into.

Oink

The judge may have a point and all, but I would love to hear that your man didn't come back. Just for the two-finger, stick-it-to-the-man - ness of it.

He probably did of course.

kidneyfan

Oink wrote: »

The judge may have a point and all, but I would love to hear that your man didn't come back. Just for the two-finger, stick-it-to-the-man - ness of it.

He probably did of course.

He was probably getting €1500 quid so yeah he put the tie on.

Ken.

So if a mechanic turned up in court in a suit and tie to give evidence about a car would O’Donohue tell him he's not allowed testify till he was covered in oil and grease?.

Victor

Cianmcliam wrote: »

If you were buying a house and the estate agent showed up in Bermuda shorts and a GAA jersey would you consider they were taking your custom seriously and with respect?

Did the architect show up in Bermuda shorts and a GAA jersey?

Sure, you would likely take them less seriously, but you can't insist that they wear a suit & tie and you certainly can't punish them.

Youngblood.III

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

If by "dressed up" you mean a matching tracksuit...

Suit from Gunineys!

listermint

Cianmcliam wrote: »

If you were buying a house and the estate agent showed up in Bermuda shorts and a GAA jersey would you consider they were taking your custom seriously and with respect? Same as if you were going before a judge and your solicitor showed up in a pair of jeans and runners, while all other solicitors were dressed in suits, would you feel the solicitor was taking your case seriously?

Did the Estate Agent turn up smartly dressed with a Blazer ?



Perhaps you do business in different circles but neat smart dress including a blazer is the norm in IT / Architecture / Construction meetings.

I havent seen a Tie at one of these for years.



Or are you implying this guy rocked up in a shorts and a GAA jersey which would not be factual.

Appears this Judge does not have a clue how professions operate in Modern Ireland.

L1011

Cianmcliam wrote: »

If you were buying a house and the estate agent showed up in Bermuda shorts and a GAA jersey would you consider they were taking your custom seriously and with respect? Same as if you were going before a judge and your solicitor showed up in a pair of jeans and runners, while all other solicitors were dressed in suits, would you feel the solicitor was taking your case seriously?

To be honest (and despite the attempt to reduce to absurdity with the estate agent one) - yes (in both cases). What you wear should have no bearing on whether you're being "serious" and I consider the granting of some level of status and importance to clothes to be quite dangerous in many ways.

The wearing of Victorian or older formal dress should not be a forced requirement anywhere at any time.

FreudianSlippers

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

Silly

Oh? I've never encountered anyone with such animosity and disrespect for the judicial system that has not been on the wrong end of the stick.

Perhaps one word sniping / name-calling are what you think are appropriate in this forum?

FreudianSlippers

keeponhurling wrote: »

bordering on slander I would have thought

From what I've seen (i) they have enough experience to know there is no such tort in this jurisdiction (ii) they only sue over safety-related comments.

FreudianSlippers

Victor wrote: »

Did the architect show up in Bermuda shorts and a GAA jersey?

Sure, you would likely take them less seriously, but you can't insist that they wear a suit & tie and you certainly can't punish them.

I actually agree, getting upset over not wearing a tie is a bit different to showing up to court in a GAA jersey, but come on - what professional doesn't show up to court in a suit and tie?

Other than Gardaí, obviously in uniform... more respectful!

Victor

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

what professional doesn't show up to court in a suit and tie?

Various categories of social / care workers, priests, many a politician, professional criminals.

Other than Gardaí,

Many a garda can be seen in court wearing tidy clothes, but no tie. They even wear jeans.

obviously in uniform... more respectful!

But wearing a zip-up fleece!??!?!!?

johnnyskeleton

tayto lover wrote: »

Judges are a law unto themselves. Most of them are prats. Full of their own importance.

To be fair, there were over a hundred judges who didnt make any comments about wearing ties yesterday, so good work on over generalising.

Judges are humans too and sometimes they will make comments that arent strictly necessary as part of the case.

Larbre34

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Judges are humans too and sometimes they will make comments that arent strictly necessary as part of the case.

Yeah but he is strictly adding to the cost of the case and wasting the time of an already overburdened system and that of the witness.

Whether the witness is a member of a profession or not should be irrelevant to his particular deportment, so long as he is presentable. Although given some of the tulips that appear in witness boxes day in and day out, Id have though the judge would be happy to see a shirt and jacket in Limerick Court.

If I was the witness, I would wait until the end of the case then make a written complaint to the President of the Circuit Court about it. Even if it goes nowhere, it might make Judge Blowhard think twice in future.

johnnyskeleton

Larbre34 wrote: »

Yeah but he is strictly adding to the cost of the case and wasting the time of an already overburdened system and that of the witness.

Professional witnesses and lawyers charge by the case/day, not by the hour usually, so I dont see how a 5 minute delay costs more. Likewise I cant imagine it caused any other cases jot to be heard. If would be different if it was an hour or twos delay.

Cianmcliam

Victor wrote: »

Did the architect show up in Bermuda shorts and a GAA jersey?

Sure, you would likely take them less seriously, but you can't insist that they wear a suit & tie and you certainly can't punish them.

I was replying to the post that said what you wear shouldn't matter in any circumstance. I haven't seen what the guy was wearing but if he was called as a witness representing the expert opinion of their profession and their own personal capacity then you would surely expect them to reflect this in their dress. Being called as an expert witness means you are representing the profession as well as yourself.

FreudianSlippers

Victor wrote: »

Various categories of social / care workers,

They have to look approachable and friendly. In fairness to the Courts, many times the Judges, solicitors and barristers dress fairly casually in these circumstances as well.

priests

You mean they're wearing their slightly faded black?

many a politician, professional criminals.

:eek:

Same thing? :P

Many a garda can be seen in court wearing tidy clothes, but no tie. They even wear jeans.

But wearing a zip-up fleece!??!?!!?

Sure... they're undercover!

StudentDad

I don't see a problem with this. It's a court, house rules apply. You wouldn't want your legal rep to turn up in t-shirt and jeans, he/she has their uniform to wear so to speak. It's expected. If the expert witness is up there on my behalf, I want him/her to dress accordingly. I sure as hell don't want him/her to piss off the court by not doing so.

SD